LUIS F. ARRIOLA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

The petition alleges and the evidence shows that Luis F. Arriola was born in
the City of Manila on August 19, 1926, of Chinese parents. Since then he resided
in this country and in the City of Manila for a period of not less than 10 years
immediately preceding the date of the petition, interrupted only by 2 vacations
in Amoy, China, first, when he was 2 years old and the second when he was 9
years of age. He is the manager of his father’s Cafeteria from which he derives
an average annual income of P1,800.00 with free board and lodging. He has a
savings account with the China Banking Corporation with a deposit of P4,029.07
as of August 12, 1955 (Exh. R.). He is single and can speak, read and write
English and Tagalog, as shown by his testimony given in English and a sample of
his handwriting in Tagalog which is marked as Exhibit X-court). He finished his
primary and intermediate courses in Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, and the high school
course in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. He is a holder of the degree of Bachelor of
Science in Commerce (cum laude) from the Far Eastern University, which was
awarded to him on April 12, 1953. While a student in the Far Eastern University,
he was a member of the Kappa Gamma Phi membership, which was based only on
highly scholastic and moral considerations. He believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution and has conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as the
community in which he is living. He is not opposed to organized government nor
affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all forms of organized government. He does not defend nor
teach the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination
for the success and predominance of man’s ideas. Neither is he polygamist nor a
believer in the practice of polygamy. He has never been convicted of any crime
involving moral turpitude, nor is he suffering from mental alienation or any
incurable contagious disease. He has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has
learned and embraced the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos. That
part of China of which he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines, which
part grants rights to Filipinos to become naturalized citizens or subjects
thereof. He has paid all his obligations to the government, as shown by his
income tax receipts, based on income tax returns filed by him.

Two Filipinos of good standing in the country are his witnesses, namely,
Andres Palma, Professor in the Far Eastern University and Technical Adviser on
Economic matters at the National Development Company, and Angel Roman, Jr., also
a Professor in the Far Eastern University, both of whom speak very highly of the
petitioner and warrant that he is a person of good moral character and a
law-abiding citizen, and, therefore, recommend the approval of the petition
(Rec. on Appeal Petition—p. 1-6 and Decision—p. 7-9).

Having been born in this country Luis F. Arrioia was dispensed with the
notice of declaration of intention and his petition was published as
required.

The hearing of the case was going through nicely until petitioner took the
witness stand, when in the course of his cross-examination the representative of
the Solicitor asked him as to whether he had paid his residence tax, and
answering in the affirmative, he produced his residence certificate No.
A-0224451 for the year 1955, which the government requested to be marked as
Exhibit 1 (p. 31 of the Record of Exhibits). It was noticed then that despite of
all other exhibits produced by petitioner wherein he appeared as “Chinese”, in
said residence certificate he was stated to be a “Filipino citizen”, which was
not true, and asked to explain this discrepancy, he replied that he did not know
it because he acquired the same through an agent and that it was only at that
time that he noticed that his said certificate mentioned him as Filipino.
Petitioner then asked for the continuation of the hearing, which was granted by
the Court setting the continuation thereof for August 18, 1955. On that date
petitioner, instead of presenting the persons who secured that certificate for
him, who most likely had committed the alleged mistake, produced the same
residence certificate with the word “Filipino” instead of the word “Chinese”
appearing ‘before as the citizenship of the petitioner. On the reverse side of
that certificate, however, there was the following explanation: “Duplicate
hereof changed as to Chinese citizenship per ACR No. 22803, dtd. 7/17/50,
Manila” followed by the initials “R.C. 8/17/55”. The intials R.C. correspond to
the name Rufino Cervantes, Chief, Residence Certificate Section, City
Treasurer’s Office, Manila, who, at the hearing, testified for the petitioner
acknowledging to have made that change.

The representative of the Solicitor General makes too much ado about this
incident, and says that:

One of the cardinal qualifications for naturalization provided by law is that
the applicant must be of good moral character and must have conducted himself in
a proper and irreproachable manner during the period of his residence in the
Philippines, in his relations with the constituted government as well as with
the community in which he is living (Sec, 2, paragraph 3, Revised,
Naturalization Law). In general, what constitutes “good moral character” is such
character that measures to the standard of the average citizen where the
applicant resides. The word “character” though, is not synonymous with
“reputation”. It simply means what a person really is, not what he is supposed
to be. In other words, the inquiry of proof in naturalization proceedings is not
so much as to the good reputation of the applicant, but as to his good behavior
as an index of actual good moral character, so that specific acts of bad
behavior are material and competent. Needless to state, this requirement of good
moral character applies to the period up to the date of the hearing (2 Am. Jur.
569; In re Boomer [D. C. Mont. 1922] 79 F. 789, cited in USCA, Title 8, footnote
No. 21, p. 436-37). The Court, therefore can and should consider any act of
misconduct which militates against the applicant in relation to his petition for
naturalization“.

just to come to the conclusion that applicant Luis F. Arriola has not proved
to be a person of honesty, fairness and morality, indispensable requisites for
moral character to entitle him to a grant of Philippine citizenship. The lower
Court, however, did not yield to consider the petitioner as one not being of
good moral character and of irreproachable behavior, and granted the petition.
Hence, this appeal by the Government wherein appellant contends that the lower
Court erred:

1. In finding that petitioner is of good moral character and that he has
   conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner with the constituted
   Government; and

2. In granting the instant petition for naturalization.

After weighing carefully the arguments adduced by the Solicitor General, We
cannot find anything wrong in the behavior of the petitioner or that he is not
of good moral character by reason of the alleged correction of his
aforementioned certificate of residence. There is ample proof on record that the
petitioner presented himself as a Chinese national and when his attention was
called to the fact that in his residence certificate for 1955, which was
procured through an agent, he appeared as a Filipino, which is a false statement
of his nationality, he took the necessary steps to rectify that mistake, and
instead of doing it by himself he went to the person whom he believed to be
vested with authority to accomplish the proper charge desired, namely, the Chief
of the Residence Certificate Section, City Treasurer’s Office, Manila, Mr. Rufino
Cervantes. Perhaps, the Solicitor General is right in saying that there is no
law expressly authorizing the petitioner or said Chief of Section to make the
correction aforementioned, although We are inclined to believe that the latter
official could have done it after receiving evidence of the mistake appearing in
a record under his custody. In the case of U. S. vs. Alejandro R. Mateo, 25
Phil., 324, this Court stated the following:

“M being required in October, 1911, for the purpose of an affidavit to
present his cedula for the year 1911 to a Justice of the Peace, produced also
his cedula for 1910; on reading the cedula for the year 1910, something which he
had not done before, M discovered that his age was stated incorrectly therein
and he, fearing the result of presenting to a public official a cedula which
contains an incorrect statement regarding his own age, changed the age, making
it 25 instead of 23; the change having been discovered by the Justice of the
Peace on the presentation of the cedula, M, without hesitation, detailed the
part he had taken in the change and the reasons therefore; it is admitted that
the age in the cedula was incorrect and that the change made the cedula give his
true age: M was charged with falsification of a cedula and was convicted. Held:
Error,

In order that the crime of falsification of a cedula be committed it is
necessary that the cedula, after the alteration, be capable, of effecting a
fraud or deception against the Government, or of obtaining for the person who
altered it some privilege or immunity which he would not have been able to
obtain, if the alteration had not been made.

In order that the crime of falsification of a cedula be committed it is
necessary that the alteration be a material one, that is, one capable of
injuring the Government or benefiting the accused. A change which cannot
possibly produce any such result, either injurious or beneficial, is not
sufficient to constitute a violation of Act 1189.

“Any alteration which makes a cedula speak the truth cannot be made the
foundation of a criminal action. It is a falsification, and not a correction,
which the law punishes”. (See also the case of People vs. Moreno, CA-38, Off.
Gaz., 109).

We, therefore, conclude that the act of petitioner in causing the correction
of an erroneous information appearing in his cedula which had passed to him
unnoticed, correction that he caused to be made by the authority or person
having custody of the original of the same, cannot reflect unfavorably on
petitioner’s moral character and irreproachable conduct.

Wherefore, the
decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. It
is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
and Endencia, JJ., concur.

 

---

CONCURRING

 

REYES, J. B. L., J.,

I concur in the result, but do not think that the rule of U. S. vs. Mateo is apposite. After all, a conduct may not be irreproachable even if it is not
criminal.

I agree, however, that under the circumstances, the documentary correction
procured by the applicant, altho ill-advised, is not reproachable conduct within
the purview of the Naturalization law.

Concepcion, J., concurs.